De La Rosa De Le Rosa v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security appeal where both parties jointly moved for judicial review. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting the plaintiff's request for remand and denying the defendant's request.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court must make a de novo determination of portions of the R&R to which a party objects. The order recites that no party filed an objection. While the court states it reviewed the record, the legal standard for unobjected portions is typically clear error review, though de novo review is permissible and often practiced. The decision to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound given the lack of objections. |
Granting Plaintiff's request for remand“Plaintiff's request is granted, and Defendant’s request is denied. (ECF No. 17). The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment remanding this action to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for further consideration consistent with this opinion.” | unclear | agree with court The court grants the plaintiff's request for remand based on the Magistrate's recommendation. The order does not recite the specific factual or legal findings of the Magistrate that led to the recommendation of remand, nor does it detail the specific error in the ALJ's decision. However, in the context of adopting an R&R in a Social Security case, the district court is bound by the R&R's findings unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Since the order adopts the R&R 'in its entirety,' it implicitly accepts the Magistrate's legal analysis. The standard of review for the underlying Social Security decision (substantial evidence) is not explicitly stated in this order, but is presumed to have been applied by the Magistrate. The remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is the correct procedural mechanism for remanding a case for further administrative proceedings. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, notes the absence of objections, and adopts the R&R. It correctly orders remand under the appropriate statutory provision. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it does not recite the specific findings of fact or conclusions of law from the Magistrate's R&R that support the remand. It relies entirely on the adoption of the R&R without summarizing the underlying legal error in the ALJ's decision, which makes it difficult to assess the substantive correctness of the remand without reading the R&R itself. Nevertheless, the procedural mechanism is correct.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HIPOLITO DE LA ROSA DE LA Case No.: 18-cv-1649-WQH-MSB ROSA, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ANDREW SAUL, Acting 14 Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 18 by United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg (ECF No. 18), pursuant to Plaintiff and 19 Defendant’s joint motion for judicial review (EFC No. 17), recommending that Plaintiff’s 20 request for reversal of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s decision and 21 remand be granted and Defendant’s request be denied. 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 23 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 25 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 26 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 27 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 28 1 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2 ||2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 3 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 4 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 5 || correct.”). 6 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 7 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 9 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's request is granted, and Defendant’s request is denied. 10 ||(ECF No. 17). The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment remanding this action to the 11 |}Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 12 ||405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for further consideration 13 consistent with this opinion. 14 |} Dated: August 30, 2019 Nitta Z. Ma 15 Hon, William Q. Hayes 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28